The Stephen Fry problem

For a man's views to be wrong one must be able to show the opposite view to be true. The trouble with Stephen is that his views are encapsulated with such vigor, such clarity of reason and an incisiveness borne lacking any appearance of malice aforethought. He is not pedantic in his reasoning, does not resort to stilted language and his rhetoric rarely reduces to triumphalism or sophistry but rather to enlightened humanism. So, were we to counter his views, how best do we approach the attempt to prove the opposite to his view is correct?

The problem:

When interviewed in 2015 by veteran Irish broadcaster Gay Byrne, Fry was asked what he would say if he came face-to-face with God. Fry said: "Bone cancer in children, what’s that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world where there is such misery that’s not our fault? It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"[206] Within days, the video was viewed over five million times.[207] Fry later stated he did not refer to any specific religion, and said: "I said quite a few things that were angry at this supposed God. I was merely saying things that Bertrand Russell and many finer heads of the mind have said for many thousands of years, going all the way back to the Greeks."[208] Because the God who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac.'[209] In May 2017 it was announced that Fry, along with broadcaster RTÉ, were under criminal investigation for blasphemy under the 2009 Defamation Act, following a complaint from a member of the public about the broadcast: the case was dropped after the police confirmed that they had not been able to locate a sufficient number of offended people

-quote from wikipedia on stephen fry

As if the problem of suffering isn't bad enough without this jackass making it worse. If Fry deserves any acknowledgement at all, it's because he at least admitted that his tirade was based entirely on other people's statements. It comes as no surprise that Fry--or any unbeliever for that matter--would focus on the suffering and simultaneously disbelieve in God while holding Him directly accountable.

Now. If he had just done a cursory read of the book of Genesis, assuming he had the intellectual capacity, he would have understood that the world existed without any suffering at all until mankind's representatives--the first and most perfectly made creatures--literally chose to usher in suffering and evil because they preferred it over the lack of knowledge and free will to do as they pleased.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
the first and most perfectly made creatures--literally chose to usher in suffering and evil because they preferred it over the lack of knowledge and free will to do as they pleased.

That's false.

The bible doesn't say Eve was ever informed that humankind would suffer and that all manner of evil will enter. The only two options she was given was the she would either die the same day she ate the fruit, or be wise.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
As if the problem of suffering isn't bad enough without this jackass making it worse. If Fry deserves any acknowledgement at all, it's because he at least admitted that his tirade was based entirely on other people's statements. It comes as no surprise that Fry--or any unbeliever for that matter--would focus on the suffering and simultaneously disbelie ...[text shortened]... d evil because they preferred it over the lack of knowledge and free will to do as they pleased.

Sir, you clearly lost this argument the moment you questioned Fry's intellectual capacity.


In relation to the OP. There is 'no' problem. Fry is correct. Simply agree with him, abandon your God and bathe in the man's genius.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke



In relation to the OP. There is 'no' problem. Fry is correct. .

Isn't that the problem?

Originally posted by @uzless
Isn't that the problem?

For believers, sure.

Their solution, as we have already seen, is to question Fry's intellectual capacity (unable, as they are to counteract the wisdom and truth of his words).

Originally posted by @uzless
For a man's views to be wrong one must be able to show the opposite view to be true. The trouble with Stephen is that his views are encapsulated with such vigor, such clarity of reason and an incisiveness borne lacking any appearance of malice aforethought. He is not pedantic in his reasoning, does not resort to stilted language and his rhetoric rarely ...[text shortened]... ble to locate a sufficient number of offended people

-quote from wikipedia on stephen fry[/b]

So Fry absolves mankind, created by God to have free will, of the consequences of mankind’s behavior? And not just in the Garden of Eden but every decision that followed that?

Man is not responsible for any of his own decisions? God is responsible for man’s decisions?

Yes, the presence of sin in the world sometimes claims innocent victims. But to say sinful behavior that claims innocent victims is God’s fault is ludicrous.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Sir, you clearly lost this argument the moment you questioned Fry's intellectual capacity.


In relation to the OP. There is 'no' problem. Fry is correct. Simply agree with him, abandon your God and bathe in the man's genius.

<<In relation to the OP. There is 'no' problem. Fry is correct. Simply agree with him, abandon your God and bathe in the man's genius.>>

LOL!

Originally posted by @vivify
That's false.

The bible doesn't say Eve was ever informed that humankind would suffer and that all manner of evil will enter. The only two options she was given was the she would either die the same day she ate the fruit, or be wise.

“And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

(Genesis 3:2-6)

Eve knew what God had commanded and chose to disobey Him. Whether she knew the full extent of the consequences of her disobedience (and Adam’s as well) is irrelevant.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Sir, you clearly lost this argument the moment you questioned Fry's intellectual capacity.


In relation to the OP. There is 'no' problem. Fry is correct. Simply agree with him, abandon your God and bathe in the man's genius.

I know your hero is a mental giant among your kind, but that was the point which I guess was a little bit subtle. It doesn't make a lot of sense that he can't understand the remedial concept of Adam and Eve deciding knowledge and freewill is more important than a life free of suffering.

It's curious to me that atheists--above all others--argue against freewill. Adam and Eve--obviously not atheists--preferred suffering over 'Pleasantville.'

If the unbelievers still don't get it, just look to the official motto of the state of New Hampshire. "LIVE FREE OR DIE." Humans--Adam and Eve being no exception--would rather suffer and die than to live constrained and without freewill.

Originally posted by @romans1009
But to say sinful behavior that claims innocent victims is God’s fault is ludicrous.

Can you clarify how bone cancer in children is derived from sinful behavior?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
If the unbelievers still don't get it, just look to the official motto of the state of New Hampshire. "LIVE FREE OR DIE." Humans--Adam and Eve being no exception--would rather suffer and die than to live constrained and without freewill.

Why would god create an Eden that did not include freewill?

Originally posted by @uzless
Why would god create an Eden that did not include freewill?

Because God knew the result of the knowledge of evil and the freewill to pursue it.

Not sure you're inclined, but you could look at it this way. God is the alpha and the omega, the uncreated master of all He surveys... perfect in every way. Any creature created by Him would by definition be less than perfect. Human beings were not created perfect. Being less than perfect, they(we) are susceptible to corruption and evil. All that said, the only way God could create imperfect humans and protect us from the suffering caused by the pursuit of evil, is to create us without knowing anything about evil or how to pursue it. So he did. That's my answer to your question, but I sense you will reject it, maybe even mock it.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Because God knew the result of the knowledge of evil and the freewill to pursue it.

How does "the knowledge of evil and the freewill to pursue evil" result in bone cancer in children?